|
It looks as you need somethink like dynamic two dimentional array.What about using STL classes? For example vector of vectors of specific type behaves like "dynamic" matrix. 
Life is a stage and we are all actors!
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Previously I was using vector of vectors but it seemed to be running slow for what I needed to do, so I was looking for optimized matrix class. The matrix is about 1,000,000 x 13
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, that's huge. I hope it is a sparse matrix and you might find a less resource-consuming way to represent the data.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, I'll check it out. Have you had good experience with it?
|
|
|
|
|
nope, no experience.
we use Intel's MKL instead (mostly due to historical reasons)
Watched code never compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
u can download from
http://www.freedownloadscenter.com/Programming/C_and_C++_Tools_and_Components/C___Matrix_Template_Class_Library.html
Truth Can'nt be changed
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone know of any good books or courses on WiX? There are some online tutorials, but they are incomplete, and a nice book would go down a treat. Our needs are fairly complex, in that we need to install multiple files, register and start services, and COM objects, create registry entries populated from user input in custom dialogs, create merge modules, create patches and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
How to make dialog controls or form view controls
resizable when the frame window is resizing
|
|
|
|
|
Sakhalean wrote: How to make dialog controls or form view controls
resizable when the frame window is resizing
You will need to trap the WM_SIZE message and then send a resize (MoveWindow() or similar) message to each control, telling it how big it needs to be.
It's time for a new signature.
|
|
|
|
|
See if the Extras section of this article is of any help.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a long routine that I'm thinking to modify splitting it in different parallel worker-thread. This to try to reach 100% on multicore CPU and let the time required be less.
Now when I start the worker-threads (say 3-5) the main-thread have to (simply) wait that the other worker-threads ends. Then it have to repeat this stage for many iterations.
A simple solution I found is to start in the main-thread a loop that do a simple Sleep (for some ms) and then checks some flags that the worker-threads sets when ending. When it understand that all the threads are end it make some computations and start all again.
What I test is that for long worker-thread it seems to work (CPU reaches 100%), but when the worker-thread are very shorts (some ms) it looks that the CPU doesn't reach high values.
I think because the time spent into the sleep function is too much in comparison with the time required from the worker thread.
Because the time required from the worker-thread depends on a complex combination of the input parameters and I can't estimate at the beginning then I tried to start with a sleepTime = 2m (very low!) increasing it after every loop of the main-thread. But again the CPU in case of short processing looks to low.
Any suggestion? Diffent approaches?
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using AfxBeginThread ... it is efficient or is it spending a little time to make some check before exit?
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Why not have your main threads wait for your worker threads to finish (usually called a join) rather than sleeping and polling?
boost::thread has a join facility and if you're using something Microsofty you can get the same effect using WaitForMulipleObjects.
Cheers,
Ash
|
|
|
|
|
maked the test. it is the same as before. This is the result:
My notebook has 2 CPU so if I start a long function as a single thread the CPU go not more to 50%.
Using 3 parallel long threads the CPU goes to 100%.
But if the worker-thread are short it looks that the program spends more time in syncronization then in processing because the CPU stays under 45-40%.
I done the test also runung the program compiled in release mode (speed optimization) inside and outside Visual studio.... the result is the same.
does anybody has some tips?
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
How long are the threads processing for before they're terminating? If it's less than a second you're not going to get a big speedup. That's life unfortunately!
There are all sorts of things that can slow processing of threads down:
- the most common one is not partitioning the data properly so you've got complex synchronisation objects involved. It takes time to lock a mutex or raise a semaphore
- you're blowing the shared L2 cache. Either the data working set is too big to fit in the cache so all your threads slow down as they're punting each other's data out OR there's no locality of reference in the data structures you're using. For example sharing a map between threads can be eyewateringly slow compared to sharing a vector. You could try compiling for size and see if that affects the number of cache misses (faster code is usually bigger so less of it fits in the processor cache)
- it just takes time to start up a thread. Somewhere between 10ms and 100ms depending on your system
Anyway the upshot of this is it's a bit hard to work out what's wrong without seeing some code and then most of the people on here probably couldn't make very good guesses as to what's wrong (me included). The other moral of this story is to only start multiple threads when you've got something specific for them to do that's going to slow down the responsiveness of your application if you do it on your main thread.
Cheers,
Ash
|
|
|
|
|
Aescleal wrote: it just takes time to start up a thread. Somewhere between 10ms and 100ms depending on your system
oh ... too much ... that is surely the problem I verified with my routine!
I then need to restyle the main thread to find if it is useful or not fire up some worker-thread
thanks, Matteo
Russell
|
|
|
|
|
Russell' wrote: A simple solution I found is to start in the main-thread a loop that do a simple Sleep (for some ms) and then checks some flags that the worker-threads sets when ending. When it understand that all the threads are end it make some computations and start all again.
There are several MFC synchronization classes just for this.
Anytime you have to use Sleep() to get the desired result, it is most likely a bad design.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"Man who follows car will be exhausted." - Confucius
|
|
|
|
|
i have wirtten a demo, which i want to chip the big file into the small ones by Memory-Mapped Files.
the main code:
HANDLE hFile = CreateFile(filePathName, GENERIC_READ | GENERIC_WRITE,
FILE_SHARE_READ|FILE_SHARE_WRITE, NULL, OPEN_EXISTING, FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL, NULL);
HANDLE hFileMap = CreateFileMapping(hFile, NULL, PAGE_READWRITE, 0, 0, NULL);
pvFile = MapViewOfFile(hFileMap, FILE_MAP_READ, 0, 0, dwCurPart);
HANDLE hNewFile = CreateFile(fileName, GENERIC_READ | GENERIC_WRITE,
FILE_SHARE_READ|FILE_SHARE_WRITE, NULL, CREATE_ALWAYS, FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL, NULL);
HANDLE hNewFileMap = CreateFileMapping(hFile, NULL, PAGE_READWRITE, 0, dwCurPart, NULL);
PVOID pvNewFile = MapViewOfFile(hNewFileMap, FILE_MAP_WRITE, 0, 0, 0);
memcpy(pvNewFile, pvFile, dwCurPart);
i can get the new files,but the file don't get any content.i think the "memcpy();" can let the content
copy into the new files. thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
|
You have set the dwNumberOfBytesToMap parameter for the destination file to 0.
Memory mapped files cannot grow like a disk files.
You have to create the destination file with blanks and set the dwNumberOfBytesToMap to the desired number of bytes.
To create a blank file use SetEndOfFile after the CreateFile call.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have created an MSI setup using VS2008 Setup project. It is installing properly but at last screen which shows "Installation Complete" I have a checkbox "Launch Now". It launches exe. But anyhow it is not launching in Vista or Win7. It is launching in XP.
Any suggestion ??
Thanks,
Rahul Kulshreshtha
|
|
|
|
|
rahul.kulshreshtha wrote: It launches exe. But anyhow it is not launching in Vista or Win7. It is launching in XP.
any security issues?
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture
cheers,
Alok Gupta
VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV
Support CRY- Child Relief and You
|
|
|
|
|
that is what I am also thinking. I think setup is running as normal process (it sometimes asks for "yes" or "no") but it is not able to run the exe.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
